I bought a second hand record from the 1950s the other day. It was riddled with snap, crackle and pop. So much so that I guessed that it was really dirty. I made up a solution of about 90 ml of de-ionised water, you could use distilled water, and about 10 ml of surgical spirit which in Britain is usually a mixture or ethyl and methyl alcohol. I mixed the water and spirit together thoroughly.
I used a sponge to thoroughly soak and wipe both sides of the LP. I dried the LP off with a tea towel and allowed it to dry. It worked amazingly well and most of the snap crackle and pop was removed. I could have used isopropyl alcohol in the mixture instead but I didn't have any. The alcohol helps to reduce the boiling point of the water so it evaporates more easily. No, I did not use boiling water but water at room temperature.
The record was still scratched and was damaged not just by the dirt but from excessive playing so some distortion remained. However, the record did not have too many pops from the scratches and played well all the way through and sounded pretty good.
I digitized the record using my PC and Audacity and got rid of more snap crackle and pop and clicks with the removal tools. Audacity could not fix the slight distortion caused by over-playing. However, the digital version still sounded very good.
It is a pity that it is not easy to generate a new LP from the digitized version so that you can repeat the LP listening "experience" without the pops.
The amount of cleaning fluid that I prepared was probably good to clean four or five records but if you want to clean lots more you can use special baths to speed up the process; these can be bought from Amazon.
Sometimes a CD might get a finger print on it or collect a little dirt and not play properly. To clean it I wipe the CD on my shirt sleeve and that does the trick. I have never allowed a CD to get so dirty that I needed to wash it but probably a little de-ionised water with a little bit of washing up liquid will clean a really dirty one. Then rinse it afterwards in de-ionised water. Probably, ordinary tap water will work provided you wipe the CD really clean. Buying specialised cleaners is probably a complete waste of money.
I have bought brand new and second hand CDs that had scratches and which were initially unplayable. I have ripped them using a PC and created a new CD which was then rendered playable. Digital technology has got wonderful error correcting technology: by doing this I have never ended up with an unplayable CD.
My second hand CD only cost a quid and for the brand new CDs I saved the cost of the time and effort to get a replacement. I also saved the record company some money. Everyone was a winner.
I once bought a CD lens cleaner. It was a waste of money and did not improve the performance of any of my laser reading equipment.
I use a special cassette tape to clean the heads of my car player and it works a treat. For other types of player, where you can get to the recording and playback heads, a little alcohol on a ball of cotton wool works a treat too.
Monday, 13 May 2013
Caveat Emptor - all you enthusiasts
Let the buyer beware. Before you spend your hard earned cash on expensive new equipment I beseech you to try out the kit first using a well recorded CD or vinyl LP and trust the judgement of your own ears. Select a recording of music which you know has a wide dynamic range and does not have any harmonic distortion; one that is bright an clear. Select music that you know well.
Economics and the laws of diminishing returns.
For some reason "high end" audio equipment is not selling very well, so a completely new turntable, amplifier, loudspeaker or DAC will cost a lot of money even if it is no good. The unit costs of design, engineering, testing and manufacturing are very high. There is also the cost of marketing and selling the product and convincing you that the new piece of equipment is worth buying even if it is no good at all or little better than a much cheaper competitor.
If an equipment producer can only sell his equipment to hundreds of people then the unit cost or price of the equipment must be far greater than if he can sell the equipment to thousands or even millions of people.
This is a law of economics which is not just limited to HIFI, the same applies to cars, wine, cosmetics and washing powder. A product which is very expensive is not necessarily better than a cheaper one. I have studied wine and I have tasted some of the top brand names and I can assure you that a £300 bottle of Bordeaux does not taste substantially better than a lesser known cousin costing £20, provided that the £20 bottle comes from a good producer.
The economics of selling any product are dependent upon supply and demand and also the psychology of the participants in the market. Mercedes cars are prestigious and they would probably not sell as well if they were priced in the same range as a Ford. People expect the Mercedes marque to be expensive and they are wary if the price is reduced.
All suppliers of equipment need to convince the potential buyer that their product is superior. They do this in a number of ways such as by becoming a very well know brand name which is associated with quality. Some times they are selling a dream but often the dream becomes an expensive reality when you finally wake up.
They also use fear or concern. The use of fear or concern is clearly demonstrated in the sale of inter-connect cables. The enthusiast is concerned that he gets the best quality signal. There is really not much difference between a good quality cable at £30 pounds and one costing many £100's. There is no real proof that oxygenated copper performs better than non-oxygenated copper. The supplier just wants you to believe it.The same reasoning applies to USB cables etc.
The same applies to special stands, different types of isolation devices or turntable mats. If you are buying a £2,000 turntable you should expect the producer to have tested the isolation feet and the turntable mat and to provide you with equipment which is up to scratch.
There is also the factor of pride of ownership. My grandfather used to be a miner and on a shelf at home I have got a real miner's lamp which has been used down the mines. You cannot read a book for long from the light it produces but the lamp brings back nostalgic memories and pride of ownership. It looks so good and it is so well made and tough.
I have alluded to the law of diminishing returns. Good standard consumer equipment can produce a really good sound and modern manufacturing techniques are improving all the time. It is now difficult to achieve really noticeable improvements at your ears without spending enormous sums of money. This is probably one of the reasons why "high end" equipment sales are falling. The buyers are finding it increasing difficult to notice differences between very expensive kit and good consumer level equipment.
The following forum shows how much some buyers agonise over this. What starts of as a sensible thread soon gets round to enthusiasts agonising more and more about the merits and demerits of equipment. Why not let your own ears be the judge?
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/law-of-diminishing-returns-upgrading-from-budget-level-to-high-end-hi-fi-components-syte
Or try this.
I shall leave you to decide who is in the real world. So buyer beware!
http://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/for-audiophiles/zen-and-the-art-of-hifi-maintenance/
Digital Music
Since the CD was introduced, in the early 80s, there have been enormous strides in the quality of sound reproduction.
A CD holds the information to reproduce music in digital format because it does not store a sound wave. It is analogous to a music manuscript. The information on a CD needs a computer to process the information into a sound wave. This processor is called a digital to analog converter or DAC.
When music is recorded by a digital tape recorder an analog to digital the converter is used or ADC. The quality of the ADC and the DAC dictate the quality of the sound of the music that you hear at your ears.
CD digital format files hold the information as 16 bit and 44.1 khz files.
The bit depth determines the dynamic range of the music in decibels at a rate of 6 decibels per bit, so a CD has a dynamic range of 96 decibels.
44.1khz is the sample rate of 44,100 cycles per second and by mathematical formulation 44.1 khz files can reproduce music up to a frequency of 22.05 khz. It does this almost perfectly and this is a fact proven both mathematically and with hearing tests.
An orchestra can, but rarely does, produce a dynamic range of 80 decibels from the quietest note of a triangle to every instrument being played at full volume. A pop group rarely manages a dynamic range of 24 decibels.
Human ears cannot hear a sound above 20 khz. As you get older the frequency response of your ears diminishes considerably.
The top note on a piano has a frequency below 5 khz. The human voice rarely gets above 2 khz. Granted that there are harmonics which are higher but any harmonic above 15 khz is rarely heard by an adult.
A CD system is capable of reproducing all the sounds of music without harmonic distortion and within the frequencies that you can hear. It can also reproduce the full dynamic range that you can hear.
A CD is therefore an exceptionally good medium for reproducing stereo HIFI sound.
But bits and bytes and mathematical formulas can lead to confusion and even falsehood. So called "HIRES"
digital files record and store the music as 24 bit 96khz (24/96) files or even 24 bit 192 khz (24/192) files.
This is OK for the recording studio but really has no use for sound reproduction in the home. A 24/192 system is capable of playing the sounds of a greater horseshoe bat at the same volume levels as a jumbo jet taking off in your living room. This is a preposterous notion so there is no place for 24/192 in the living room.
The only peer reviewed scientific tests that have have been performed have shown that with all other things being equal human beings cannot tell the difference between "HIRES" music sound reproduction and CD quality.
My own tests confirm this in a non-scientific way. I have converted 24/96 music files to CD quality. I cannot tell the difference on playback and neither can my wife or friends.
It is possible that a 24/192 or a 24/96 music file could have been mastered better than a CD quality file and therefore could sound better to your ears. Equally, a CD quality file could have been mastered better than a "HIRES" file and sound better. The file structure makes no difference. 16/44.1 files are of good enough quality for sound reproduction in the home.
So buyer beware, when you are offered a super duper network streamer that can play 24/192 music files or even 32/384 files for what appears to be an exorbitant price; you are paying a lot of money for extra capability which is in fact redundant.
I am sticking to a well mastered CD that can bring John Fahey or a full orchestra into my living room.
This site explains it all and it is factually correct. Make sure you are not taken for a digital ride.
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Analog Music - Audio Cassettes
I listen to audio cassettes a lot in the car. If you use a high quality tape they sound great and the tape hiss is hardly noticeable. They do not reproduce the music as good as a CD but the sound is perfectly acceptable for me. When the tapes stretch and become unplayable you can make a new one from a CD.
I have still got a very high quality cassette player from the 1980's which sounds great.
You can still buy cassette tape players and recorders which sound very good. They are not so much in demand and because there is very little "hype" written about them they are good value for money.
Why not try it, some of my friends used to archive their LPs on cassette tape to preserve the vinyl and these cassettes sounded almost as good as the LPs themselves.
Analog Music - Vinyl LPs and Singles
I still like to listen to LPs and Singles every now and then but albeit on a humble turntable. Virtually all of my music is from a digital source or a CD and I have converted all of my remaining LPs and audio cassettes to digital. I hardly notice any deterioration in sound quality when I digitise the music and I can remove tape hiss and snap crackle and pop in Audacity.
It is fun to spin a record and an LP sounds fantastic in its own way. Why is this?
The LP is a recording medium which is more flawed than CD and this is a fact. For me, the slight flaws and harmonic distortion render a pleasing sound to the music; especially if it is a 1960s pop record .
It is not possible to transcribe the sound wave onto a metal master exactly. The act of pressing the record also introduces errors. Play back of the record introduces artifacts from dust,scratches and static electricity. Records are easy to damage and a heavily scratched record or a warped one might be unplayable.
There is also rumble from the motor which can sometimes be heard . The mere act of using a needle in a groove creates friction and this energy is converted into sound.
Records also wear out and each time you play them they deteriorate. At the moment I am listening to a 1950s LP that has become worn out and the music is being distorted slightly. Costly equipment cannot correct or improve the performance of this record.
An LP record cannot equal the dynamic range of a CD or the full frequency range of a CD without harmonic distortion. Then there is also wow and flutter to contend with on cheaper turntables.
With all these problems, I am amazed at how good records can sound sometimes.
However, it is no wonder that many classical music lovers prefer CD. I include myself in this category.
But, I love listening to LPs for pop music and some types of jazz such as Billy Eckstine and Sarah Vaughan. I like the actual act of putting a record on a deck and watching it spin but this has got nothing to do with sonic performance.
Consider this: it is very expensive to eliminate all the errors . You require a heavy deck to reduce vibration, some decks are equipped with stroboscopes to ensure that the discs spin at the correct speed. You can use special tone arms to improve tracking. You can also control the tracking weight of the cartridge and use anti-skating devices to improve needle performance.
In the seventies everyone had a turntable and most of the improvements to turntable performance originated in this decade. The belt drive almost eliminated the rumble caused by idler wheels and the cartridges improved enormously. Every enthusiast could compare the performance of a deck. During this time we were all "tweakers" but I cannot remember noticing much difference when adjusting tracking weights or anti-skate devices. Quartz controlled electronics have helped improve turntable speed performance during recent years.
There is so much emotion generated surrounding the performance of LPs and vinyl. Enthusiasts seem unable to accept that CD quality digital has had the potential to improve performance. Many vinyl enthusiasts are therefore prepared to spend enormous sums of money to achieve a technical perfection which is not possible because of the inbuilt limitations of the format.
A £3,000 tone arm looks great but will it perform 30 times better than a £100 pound one? I doubt this very much; the performance improvement could be almost inaudible or it could even be worse and audible. If you have got £3,000 to spare and lying around in your back pocket then go ahead especially if it makes you feel better. But do you want to save up all your hard earned cash for a dubious improvement?
Also, consider this: some turntable manufacturers are returning to idler or rim driven platters. This technology was used for 1960s decks and it was fundamentally flawed. It introduced rumble into the equation and this is why belt driven and direct drive turntables sound so much better. Why spend thousands for this sort of technology?
Even a humble consumer turntable performs so much better than than 1960s model and consumer technology is rapidly catching up with "High End " performance.
Consider this too: the newly remastered Beatles LPs have been produced from 24/192 digital sources which are only really of CD quality. If LP technology could somehow be made perfect then the best sound reproduction would only give you the sound quality of a digital source. Do you really want to spend a fortune to hear a Beatles CD reproduced on an LP?
Of course, LP sound reproduction is not perfect so listeners will be hearing the music with a slight harmonic distortion which sounds pleasant.
I am sticking to the CD versions which sound just as good if not better than any LP of the Beatles that I have ever heard including my own.
There is increasing interest in turntables for the sake of nostalgia and making digital archives, so buyer beware and trust your own ears. Even a more humble turntable can sound good and make acceptable digital copies of your old records. Remember the limitations of the LP format itself; some of which cannot be corrected no matter what the quality or the cost of equipment that you are using.
An LP is a piece of plastic costing pence to make and it is a very low cost source of music. So is CD, audio cassette and digital download for that matter. So why does the replay equipment have to be so expensive?
It is really worth reading this below; they sound like honest traders to me.
http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/
HIFI Magazines
HIFI magazines have very limited circulation and most of the British ones are not even read by 30,000 people. They need advertising revenue just as much as any other publication. They also have to write something interesting about the products that they feature. HIFI magazines are part of selling the dream.
It would be very boring if they always said that one form of expensive equipment sounded the same as another. But if we are talking about exceptional quality kit then the sound reproduction should sound almost exactly the same as the original. This is what HIFI is all about, surely? If two forms of equipment sound substantially different then there must be something wrong with one or both of them.
The magazines do not seem to have recognised that 24/192 digital performance is no better than 16/44.1 with all other things being equal. The claims for "HIRES" performance should be critically examined rather than assuming that it must be better.
Enough said, so read these articles which are two of the best articles about HIFI that I have read.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/
http://ethanwiner.com/myths.html
Also watch this and see and hear how your ears and judgement can be fooled by the power of suggestion. This is why double blind peer reviewed scientific tests are so important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
So caveat emptor , buyer beware! Happy listening and spend wisely.
Economics and the laws of diminishing returns.
For some reason "high end" audio equipment is not selling very well, so a completely new turntable, amplifier, loudspeaker or DAC will cost a lot of money even if it is no good. The unit costs of design, engineering, testing and manufacturing are very high. There is also the cost of marketing and selling the product and convincing you that the new piece of equipment is worth buying even if it is no good at all or little better than a much cheaper competitor.
If an equipment producer can only sell his equipment to hundreds of people then the unit cost or price of the equipment must be far greater than if he can sell the equipment to thousands or even millions of people.
This is a law of economics which is not just limited to HIFI, the same applies to cars, wine, cosmetics and washing powder. A product which is very expensive is not necessarily better than a cheaper one. I have studied wine and I have tasted some of the top brand names and I can assure you that a £300 bottle of Bordeaux does not taste substantially better than a lesser known cousin costing £20, provided that the £20 bottle comes from a good producer.
The economics of selling any product are dependent upon supply and demand and also the psychology of the participants in the market. Mercedes cars are prestigious and they would probably not sell as well if they were priced in the same range as a Ford. People expect the Mercedes marque to be expensive and they are wary if the price is reduced.
All suppliers of equipment need to convince the potential buyer that their product is superior. They do this in a number of ways such as by becoming a very well know brand name which is associated with quality. Some times they are selling a dream but often the dream becomes an expensive reality when you finally wake up.
They also use fear or concern. The use of fear or concern is clearly demonstrated in the sale of inter-connect cables. The enthusiast is concerned that he gets the best quality signal. There is really not much difference between a good quality cable at £30 pounds and one costing many £100's. There is no real proof that oxygenated copper performs better than non-oxygenated copper. The supplier just wants you to believe it.The same reasoning applies to USB cables etc.
The same applies to special stands, different types of isolation devices or turntable mats. If you are buying a £2,000 turntable you should expect the producer to have tested the isolation feet and the turntable mat and to provide you with equipment which is up to scratch.
There is also the factor of pride of ownership. My grandfather used to be a miner and on a shelf at home I have got a real miner's lamp which has been used down the mines. You cannot read a book for long from the light it produces but the lamp brings back nostalgic memories and pride of ownership. It looks so good and it is so well made and tough.
I have alluded to the law of diminishing returns. Good standard consumer equipment can produce a really good sound and modern manufacturing techniques are improving all the time. It is now difficult to achieve really noticeable improvements at your ears without spending enormous sums of money. This is probably one of the reasons why "high end" equipment sales are falling. The buyers are finding it increasing difficult to notice differences between very expensive kit and good consumer level equipment.
The following forum shows how much some buyers agonise over this. What starts of as a sensible thread soon gets round to enthusiasts agonising more and more about the merits and demerits of equipment. Why not let your own ears be the judge?
http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/law-of-diminishing-returns-upgrading-from-budget-level-to-high-end-hi-fi-components-syte
Or try this.
I shall leave you to decide who is in the real world. So buyer beware!
http://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/for-audiophiles/zen-and-the-art-of-hifi-maintenance/
Digital Music
Since the CD was introduced, in the early 80s, there have been enormous strides in the quality of sound reproduction.
A CD holds the information to reproduce music in digital format because it does not store a sound wave. It is analogous to a music manuscript. The information on a CD needs a computer to process the information into a sound wave. This processor is called a digital to analog converter or DAC.
When music is recorded by a digital tape recorder an analog to digital the converter is used or ADC. The quality of the ADC and the DAC dictate the quality of the sound of the music that you hear at your ears.
CD digital format files hold the information as 16 bit and 44.1 khz files.
The bit depth determines the dynamic range of the music in decibels at a rate of 6 decibels per bit, so a CD has a dynamic range of 96 decibels.
44.1khz is the sample rate of 44,100 cycles per second and by mathematical formulation 44.1 khz files can reproduce music up to a frequency of 22.05 khz. It does this almost perfectly and this is a fact proven both mathematically and with hearing tests.
An orchestra can, but rarely does, produce a dynamic range of 80 decibels from the quietest note of a triangle to every instrument being played at full volume. A pop group rarely manages a dynamic range of 24 decibels.
Human ears cannot hear a sound above 20 khz. As you get older the frequency response of your ears diminishes considerably.
The top note on a piano has a frequency below 5 khz. The human voice rarely gets above 2 khz. Granted that there are harmonics which are higher but any harmonic above 15 khz is rarely heard by an adult.
A CD system is capable of reproducing all the sounds of music without harmonic distortion and within the frequencies that you can hear. It can also reproduce the full dynamic range that you can hear.
A CD is therefore an exceptionally good medium for reproducing stereo HIFI sound.
But bits and bytes and mathematical formulas can lead to confusion and even falsehood. So called "HIRES"
digital files record and store the music as 24 bit 96khz (24/96) files or even 24 bit 192 khz (24/192) files.
This is OK for the recording studio but really has no use for sound reproduction in the home. A 24/192 system is capable of playing the sounds of a greater horseshoe bat at the same volume levels as a jumbo jet taking off in your living room. This is a preposterous notion so there is no place for 24/192 in the living room.
The only peer reviewed scientific tests that have have been performed have shown that with all other things being equal human beings cannot tell the difference between "HIRES" music sound reproduction and CD quality.
My own tests confirm this in a non-scientific way. I have converted 24/96 music files to CD quality. I cannot tell the difference on playback and neither can my wife or friends.
It is possible that a 24/192 or a 24/96 music file could have been mastered better than a CD quality file and therefore could sound better to your ears. Equally, a CD quality file could have been mastered better than a "HIRES" file and sound better. The file structure makes no difference. 16/44.1 files are of good enough quality for sound reproduction in the home.
So buyer beware, when you are offered a super duper network streamer that can play 24/192 music files or even 32/384 files for what appears to be an exorbitant price; you are paying a lot of money for extra capability which is in fact redundant.
I am sticking to a well mastered CD that can bring John Fahey or a full orchestra into my living room.
This site explains it all and it is factually correct. Make sure you are not taken for a digital ride.
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Analog Music - Audio Cassettes
I listen to audio cassettes a lot in the car. If you use a high quality tape they sound great and the tape hiss is hardly noticeable. They do not reproduce the music as good as a CD but the sound is perfectly acceptable for me. When the tapes stretch and become unplayable you can make a new one from a CD.
I have still got a very high quality cassette player from the 1980's which sounds great.
You can still buy cassette tape players and recorders which sound very good. They are not so much in demand and because there is very little "hype" written about them they are good value for money.
Why not try it, some of my friends used to archive their LPs on cassette tape to preserve the vinyl and these cassettes sounded almost as good as the LPs themselves.
Analog Music - Vinyl LPs and Singles
I still like to listen to LPs and Singles every now and then but albeit on a humble turntable. Virtually all of my music is from a digital source or a CD and I have converted all of my remaining LPs and audio cassettes to digital. I hardly notice any deterioration in sound quality when I digitise the music and I can remove tape hiss and snap crackle and pop in Audacity.
It is fun to spin a record and an LP sounds fantastic in its own way. Why is this?
The LP is a recording medium which is more flawed than CD and this is a fact. For me, the slight flaws and harmonic distortion render a pleasing sound to the music; especially if it is a 1960s pop record .
It is not possible to transcribe the sound wave onto a metal master exactly. The act of pressing the record also introduces errors. Play back of the record introduces artifacts from dust,scratches and static electricity. Records are easy to damage and a heavily scratched record or a warped one might be unplayable.
There is also rumble from the motor which can sometimes be heard . The mere act of using a needle in a groove creates friction and this energy is converted into sound.
Records also wear out and each time you play them they deteriorate. At the moment I am listening to a 1950s LP that has become worn out and the music is being distorted slightly. Costly equipment cannot correct or improve the performance of this record.
An LP record cannot equal the dynamic range of a CD or the full frequency range of a CD without harmonic distortion. Then there is also wow and flutter to contend with on cheaper turntables.
With all these problems, I am amazed at how good records can sound sometimes.
However, it is no wonder that many classical music lovers prefer CD. I include myself in this category.
But, I love listening to LPs for pop music and some types of jazz such as Billy Eckstine and Sarah Vaughan. I like the actual act of putting a record on a deck and watching it spin but this has got nothing to do with sonic performance.
Consider this: it is very expensive to eliminate all the errors . You require a heavy deck to reduce vibration, some decks are equipped with stroboscopes to ensure that the discs spin at the correct speed. You can use special tone arms to improve tracking. You can also control the tracking weight of the cartridge and use anti-skating devices to improve needle performance.
In the seventies everyone had a turntable and most of the improvements to turntable performance originated in this decade. The belt drive almost eliminated the rumble caused by idler wheels and the cartridges improved enormously. Every enthusiast could compare the performance of a deck. During this time we were all "tweakers" but I cannot remember noticing much difference when adjusting tracking weights or anti-skate devices. Quartz controlled electronics have helped improve turntable speed performance during recent years.
There is so much emotion generated surrounding the performance of LPs and vinyl. Enthusiasts seem unable to accept that CD quality digital has had the potential to improve performance. Many vinyl enthusiasts are therefore prepared to spend enormous sums of money to achieve a technical perfection which is not possible because of the inbuilt limitations of the format.
A £3,000 tone arm looks great but will it perform 30 times better than a £100 pound one? I doubt this very much; the performance improvement could be almost inaudible or it could even be worse and audible. If you have got £3,000 to spare and lying around in your back pocket then go ahead especially if it makes you feel better. But do you want to save up all your hard earned cash for a dubious improvement?
Also, consider this: some turntable manufacturers are returning to idler or rim driven platters. This technology was used for 1960s decks and it was fundamentally flawed. It introduced rumble into the equation and this is why belt driven and direct drive turntables sound so much better. Why spend thousands for this sort of technology?
Even a humble consumer turntable performs so much better than than 1960s model and consumer technology is rapidly catching up with "High End " performance.
Consider this too: the newly remastered Beatles LPs have been produced from 24/192 digital sources which are only really of CD quality. If LP technology could somehow be made perfect then the best sound reproduction would only give you the sound quality of a digital source. Do you really want to spend a fortune to hear a Beatles CD reproduced on an LP?
Of course, LP sound reproduction is not perfect so listeners will be hearing the music with a slight harmonic distortion which sounds pleasant.
I am sticking to the CD versions which sound just as good if not better than any LP of the Beatles that I have ever heard including my own.
There is increasing interest in turntables for the sake of nostalgia and making digital archives, so buyer beware and trust your own ears. Even a more humble turntable can sound good and make acceptable digital copies of your old records. Remember the limitations of the LP format itself; some of which cannot be corrected no matter what the quality or the cost of equipment that you are using.
An LP is a piece of plastic costing pence to make and it is a very low cost source of music. So is CD, audio cassette and digital download for that matter. So why does the replay equipment have to be so expensive?
It is really worth reading this below; they sound like honest traders to me.
http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/
HIFI Magazines
HIFI magazines have very limited circulation and most of the British ones are not even read by 30,000 people. They need advertising revenue just as much as any other publication. They also have to write something interesting about the products that they feature. HIFI magazines are part of selling the dream.
It would be very boring if they always said that one form of expensive equipment sounded the same as another. But if we are talking about exceptional quality kit then the sound reproduction should sound almost exactly the same as the original. This is what HIFI is all about, surely? If two forms of equipment sound substantially different then there must be something wrong with one or both of them.
The magazines do not seem to have recognised that 24/192 digital performance is no better than 16/44.1 with all other things being equal. The claims for "HIRES" performance should be critically examined rather than assuming that it must be better.
Enough said, so read these articles which are two of the best articles about HIFI that I have read.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06/
http://ethanwiner.com/myths.html
Also watch this and see and hear how your ears and judgement can be fooled by the power of suggestion. This is why double blind peer reviewed scientific tests are so important.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
So caveat emptor , buyer beware! Happy listening and spend wisely.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Getting back to the sixties sound
There is a lot of talk in the music and Hi-Fi press about getting back to the sixties sound. This is probably due to the interest surrounding the release of the newly remastered Beatles LPs. Well it is difficult to get back there. The best way would be to buy yourself a refurbished mono record player of the era and to play some records which you have kept from the sixties. This is of course impractical. To play a new LP on such a device with its ceramic cartridge and sapphire needle would damage the recording immediately so this is impractical too - and expensive.
There are lots of youtube sites where the contributors play a refurbished Dansette or other type of mono record player. They give a good flavour of what it all sounded like. You had mains hum, poor frequency response with plenty of wow and flutter, harmonic distortion and deck rumble. Of course, there would also be plenty of snap crackle and pop from the damage caused by excessive playing with a poor heavyweight cartridge. And, there would be scratches caused by your friends when they decided to have a party with the record they had borrowed from you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq2gZhZenY
The sixties record player sounded as if it was playing in another room. Even the most humble turntable, amplifier and speaker set up from modern times outperforms sixties type equipment by a long way.
I discovered a way of getting back to former times the other day when I made an audio-cassette of the Beatles Past Masters CD for use in my aging car. I used a blank tape that had been hanging around in a cupboard for at least 20 years. This tape had degraded considerably. The result was a recording that had plenty of harmonic distortion and a poor frequency response. I really had to turn the volume up to listen to it in the car and the tape sounded as if it was coming from the next vehicle in the traffic jam.
I could not replicate the the mains hum or the snap crackle and pop. But, if I had taped one of my LPs surviving from the sixties it would probably have had plenty of scratches and damage showing up on the recording. All this degradation of sound took me back on a sentimental journey - fantastic. For most of my listening, however, I prefer good old CD.
There are lots of youtube sites where the contributors play a refurbished Dansette or other type of mono record player. They give a good flavour of what it all sounded like. You had mains hum, poor frequency response with plenty of wow and flutter, harmonic distortion and deck rumble. Of course, there would also be plenty of snap crackle and pop from the damage caused by excessive playing with a poor heavyweight cartridge. And, there would be scratches caused by your friends when they decided to have a party with the record they had borrowed from you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq2gZhZenY
The sixties record player sounded as if it was playing in another room. Even the most humble turntable, amplifier and speaker set up from modern times outperforms sixties type equipment by a long way.
I discovered a way of getting back to former times the other day when I made an audio-cassette of the Beatles Past Masters CD for use in my aging car. I used a blank tape that had been hanging around in a cupboard for at least 20 years. This tape had degraded considerably. The result was a recording that had plenty of harmonic distortion and a poor frequency response. I really had to turn the volume up to listen to it in the car and the tape sounded as if it was coming from the next vehicle in the traffic jam.
I could not replicate the the mains hum or the snap crackle and pop. But, if I had taped one of my LPs surviving from the sixties it would probably have had plenty of scratches and damage showing up on the recording. All this degradation of sound took me back on a sentimental journey - fantastic. For most of my listening, however, I prefer good old CD.
Saturday, 20 April 2013
Variable Quality of Master Tapes
In the computer profession there is an old aphorism. Garbage in and Garbage out or "GIGO. This applies to the sound reproduction of music.
The other day I was playing a compilation disc of Caravan recordings. At one point I though that something had gone wrong with my amplifier and I would find an excuse to buy a new one. Not so, the dynamic range on the different tracks was very variable and so was the volume. All of the tracks sounded fine on their own but when compared to one another quickly they exposed differences in the mastering techniques.
I played a John Fahey recording which I use as a reference and there he was sitting in my living room and playing to me; the sound reproduction was perfect. There was no excuse to re-invest.
If poor equipment is used to make the original recording or if a mistake is made then a poor master recording will result. Then there will be poor musical performance all the way through to your loudspeakers and eventually your ears.
If, a sound engineer does not master the recordings well then the music can be ruined. Too much compression will result in music reproduction that is boring and soulless.
If there is a poor master recording nothing much can be done to resolve the situation by using 180 gm vinyl pressings or so called high resolution digital 24 bit /192 kHz master tapes. They cannot correct an inadequate frequency response or rectify harmonic distortion or excessive noise etc.
Remember, all sound reproduction systems will degrade the sound coming out of your speakers to a lesser or greater extent. No turntable, cartridge or tone arm combination can put right the mistakes made in the original recording or master tape. The same applies to Digital to Analogue Converters. No form of investment in high end equipment will rectify these errors either.
This facet of Hi-Fi sound reproduction is regularly ignored by some magazines and manufacturers. I wonder why? But be assured that "GIGO"reigns supreme.
The other day I was playing a compilation disc of Caravan recordings. At one point I though that something had gone wrong with my amplifier and I would find an excuse to buy a new one. Not so, the dynamic range on the different tracks was very variable and so was the volume. All of the tracks sounded fine on their own but when compared to one another quickly they exposed differences in the mastering techniques.
I played a John Fahey recording which I use as a reference and there he was sitting in my living room and playing to me; the sound reproduction was perfect. There was no excuse to re-invest.
If poor equipment is used to make the original recording or if a mistake is made then a poor master recording will result. Then there will be poor musical performance all the way through to your loudspeakers and eventually your ears.
If, a sound engineer does not master the recordings well then the music can be ruined. Too much compression will result in music reproduction that is boring and soulless.
If there is a poor master recording nothing much can be done to resolve the situation by using 180 gm vinyl pressings or so called high resolution digital 24 bit /192 kHz master tapes. They cannot correct an inadequate frequency response or rectify harmonic distortion or excessive noise etc.
Remember, all sound reproduction systems will degrade the sound coming out of your speakers to a lesser or greater extent. No turntable, cartridge or tone arm combination can put right the mistakes made in the original recording or master tape. The same applies to Digital to Analogue Converters. No form of investment in high end equipment will rectify these errors either.
This facet of Hi-Fi sound reproduction is regularly ignored by some magazines and manufacturers. I wonder why? But be assured that "GIGO"reigns supreme.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Long Playing Albums - Love or Hate them they are still fun
The other day I was looking through some LP albums that I have not played for years and found a 1987 record - Heyday by the Fairport Convention.
I inspected the record surface and could see no significant marks or scratches. I cleaned it and played it and there was very little snap crackle or pop and you could only hear it between the tracks; there was no sound of a deadly scratch either.
You could notice that the tracks had not been mastered very well as they were recorded live by the BBC during the 1968 and 1969. At this time Fairport were singing cover versions of American artists such as Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen and even the Everly Brothers. Perhaps the BBC had never originally intended to release these recordings on album.
The listening was going well and the record sounded almost pristine until the last few bars of the last track on the first side. The record got stuck before it could run off. I examined the record again and saw the slightest of scratches. Some of my other records were much more heavily damaged than this one but played all the way through. Why does one of my favourite albums have to behave this way?
There was no other choice but to increase the tracking weight so I could play the last track to the end.
I always like to listen to an LP all the way through and it is bad enough having to flip the record over to the second side let alone go through the rigmarole of changing the tracking weight. This is why I am going to buy the CD when see it.
This type of bad experience, with a vinyl LP, is one of the reasons why I converted to digital media - the music does not sound that different after all.
I packed away the records and the turntable despite appeals from my wife. I don't know how long it will be before I listen to an LP again but I will; I still like the sound despite all the difficulties.
I inspected the record surface and could see no significant marks or scratches. I cleaned it and played it and there was very little snap crackle or pop and you could only hear it between the tracks; there was no sound of a deadly scratch either.
You could notice that the tracks had not been mastered very well as they were recorded live by the BBC during the 1968 and 1969. At this time Fairport were singing cover versions of American artists such as Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen and even the Everly Brothers. Perhaps the BBC had never originally intended to release these recordings on album.
The listening was going well and the record sounded almost pristine until the last few bars of the last track on the first side. The record got stuck before it could run off. I examined the record again and saw the slightest of scratches. Some of my other records were much more heavily damaged than this one but played all the way through. Why does one of my favourite albums have to behave this way?
There was no other choice but to increase the tracking weight so I could play the last track to the end.
I always like to listen to an LP all the way through and it is bad enough having to flip the record over to the second side let alone go through the rigmarole of changing the tracking weight. This is why I am going to buy the CD when see it.
This type of bad experience, with a vinyl LP, is one of the reasons why I converted to digital media - the music does not sound that different after all.
I packed away the records and the turntable despite appeals from my wife. I don't know how long it will be before I listen to an LP again but I will; I still like the sound despite all the difficulties.
Thursday, 14 February 2013
Stephane Grapelli and the Hot Club Of London
My decision to digitise some of my family's old records has really paid dividends. I have found a double LP of Stephane Grapelli recorded live with the Hot Club Of London at the Queen Elizabeth Hall London on the 5th of November 1973. The Queen Elizabeth Hall is a great place to go and hear music. I think that the acoustics here are much better than the Royal Albert Hall.
My father loved to listen to Stephane Grapelli and I have also loved his music since I was a boy. For me the violin is the perfect jazz instrument. It has a wide range of tones and Grapelli can make the violin almost sing. The violin also plays well with acoustic jazz guitar and double bass.
Grapelli is a maestro on the violin. He has played jazz violin in concert with Yehudi Menuin. Two maestros together: it was a fabulous combination. You can certainly hear classical music intermingled within the complex melodies of Grapelli's jazz. There is folk music in there too.
http://www.classical.net/music/recs/reviews/e/emi66830a.php
The Hot Club of London included Diz Disley and Denny Wright on guitar. These two guitarists were also great musicians and provided a most sympathetic backing. Their guitar playing is far better than anyone in the Rolling Stone 100 with perhaps the exception of Jimmy Hendrix. They were masters of their craft.
One of my favourite tracks on this recording is "Misty". I thought that Errol Garner could not be bettered and that the piano was the best instrument to portray this sublime song. Well, Stephane and the Hot Club of London made a masterful rendition of this classic too.
Len Skeat laid down the perfect rhythmic and bass accompaniment; there was no need for a drummer.
I really like the sense of humour that comes across on this recording; at one point Grapelli and the two guitarists were mimicking one another.
I could play this type of jazz all day and like Errol Garner's music I could never tire of it.
From a technical point of view this album has been recorded, possibly by the BBC, and mastered with a deft touch that Diz Disley would have been proud of. There is a wide dynamic range and a fantastic sound stage, you can hear where the musicians are positioned. The audience reaction comes across very well and I felt that I could have been at the performance. I could hear the crowd all around me.
This 125 gm LP puts many modern recordings to shame. The PA system in the hall does that too. Some modern sound engineers should listen to this recording and learn to show a lighter touch on the sound compression sliders. The sound of pop music could be improved too by allowing more dynamic range to show through.
All this goes to show that the original recording techniques and the mastering of the tapes are of prime importance as far as Hi-Fi is concerned and this exposes the aridity of arguments about which is better CD, Vinyl and "High Resolution". None of these media can be enjoyed if the original recordings and masters are poor.
I was really surprised at how well this double LP had survived. There were no scratches on the record and there was minimal snap, crackle and pop. However, someone had dropped record #1 and chipped the edge so great care was needed when I cued the first track on both sides. This means that I cannot allow anyone else to play this record on a deck.
I have now converted the album to digital and it sounds exactly the same. I did not need to use noise removal but you can hear a gentle crackle in the very quiet bits but this does not spoil any of the enjoyment. The vinyl and my digital conversion both sound fantastic so there is no need to buy a new digital or analogue version, for that matter. The LP is now filed away.
What really matters, is that Stephane Grapelli and the Hot Club of London have produced musical perfection and we are so lucky that we can get a taste of this via our recordings and Hi-Fi systems.
I urge all music lovers to buy this record.
http://www.discogs.com/St%C3%A9phane-Grappelli-I-Got-Rhythm/release/2435496
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1457711/a/Live+In+London.htm
My father loved to listen to Stephane Grapelli and I have also loved his music since I was a boy. For me the violin is the perfect jazz instrument. It has a wide range of tones and Grapelli can make the violin almost sing. The violin also plays well with acoustic jazz guitar and double bass.
Grapelli is a maestro on the violin. He has played jazz violin in concert with Yehudi Menuin. Two maestros together: it was a fabulous combination. You can certainly hear classical music intermingled within the complex melodies of Grapelli's jazz. There is folk music in there too.
http://www.classical.net/music/recs/reviews/e/emi66830a.php
The Hot Club of London included Diz Disley and Denny Wright on guitar. These two guitarists were also great musicians and provided a most sympathetic backing. Their guitar playing is far better than anyone in the Rolling Stone 100 with perhaps the exception of Jimmy Hendrix. They were masters of their craft.
One of my favourite tracks on this recording is "Misty". I thought that Errol Garner could not be bettered and that the piano was the best instrument to portray this sublime song. Well, Stephane and the Hot Club of London made a masterful rendition of this classic too.
Len Skeat laid down the perfect rhythmic and bass accompaniment; there was no need for a drummer.
I really like the sense of humour that comes across on this recording; at one point Grapelli and the two guitarists were mimicking one another.
I could play this type of jazz all day and like Errol Garner's music I could never tire of it.
From a technical point of view this album has been recorded, possibly by the BBC, and mastered with a deft touch that Diz Disley would have been proud of. There is a wide dynamic range and a fantastic sound stage, you can hear where the musicians are positioned. The audience reaction comes across very well and I felt that I could have been at the performance. I could hear the crowd all around me.
This 125 gm LP puts many modern recordings to shame. The PA system in the hall does that too. Some modern sound engineers should listen to this recording and learn to show a lighter touch on the sound compression sliders. The sound of pop music could be improved too by allowing more dynamic range to show through.
All this goes to show that the original recording techniques and the mastering of the tapes are of prime importance as far as Hi-Fi is concerned and this exposes the aridity of arguments about which is better CD, Vinyl and "High Resolution". None of these media can be enjoyed if the original recordings and masters are poor.
I was really surprised at how well this double LP had survived. There were no scratches on the record and there was minimal snap, crackle and pop. However, someone had dropped record #1 and chipped the edge so great care was needed when I cued the first track on both sides. This means that I cannot allow anyone else to play this record on a deck.
I have now converted the album to digital and it sounds exactly the same. I did not need to use noise removal but you can hear a gentle crackle in the very quiet bits but this does not spoil any of the enjoyment. The vinyl and my digital conversion both sound fantastic so there is no need to buy a new digital or analogue version, for that matter. The LP is now filed away.
What really matters, is that Stephane Grapelli and the Hot Club of London have produced musical perfection and we are so lucky that we can get a taste of this via our recordings and Hi-Fi systems.
I urge all music lovers to buy this record.
http://www.discogs.com/St%C3%A9phane-Grappelli-I-Got-Rhythm/release/2435496
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1457711/a/Live+In+London.htm
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Mary Coughlan - Under The Influence - Tape Conversion
I revisited a conversion that I made of Mary Coughlan - Under The Influence Compact Cassette ( see below). I had converted the music to a WAV file using Audacity. I removed all the tape hiss by using the noise removal function and chopped up the file into the individual tracks and labelled them using the add label function.
I rigged up a high quality portable cassette player which still works very well . I connected the line outputs to the line input on my PC.
Audacity made an almost perfect copy of this tape. Even though the tape deck had Dolby Noise reduction you could still hear some tape hiss between the tracks. Audacity has removed all of this hiss without affecting the quality of the music. When I playback the copied file I hear silence between the racks just as if I was playing a CD.
The music, however, still sounds as if a Cassette is playing. This highlights the resolving power of digital technology. The music sounds exactly the same from both sources. There is no doubt in my mind that multiple and sequential copies of a WAV file or a CD could be made digitally without a deterioration in the quality of the music. This would not be possible in analogue format with Cassettes or LP records for that matter.
It would not be possible to make multiple and sequential of MP3 files without a deterioration of sound quality either.
I can now play Mary Coughlan in our modern car or stream her music all over the house. The original cassette still plays well after all those years but when it finally gives up the ghost I can make another tape for the older car. The tape hiss will comeback, however. One of the advantages of a digital file is that I can keep a master copy. I hope my jalopy will last long enough to test out the new tape.
Compact Cassettes will probably survive for a long time into the future just like LPs as there will always be someone who wants to play them. Let us hope that manufacturers will continue to make the tapes and the players. Maybe one day there will be a Cassette Tape revival.
I went to see Mary Coughlan live in 1987 just after the Under the Influence Album was released. She is one of the best performers I have had the pleasure of listening to live. She has a powerful, sultry and husky voice which is just right for jazz singing. There was no " lip-synching". She could perform well in a small jazz club without amplification. How many modern pop singers could do that?
Her backing musicians were completely professional .The sound engineers brought out the best of her voice even though they were using equipment primitive by today's standards. The full dynamic range of her voice could be appreciated.
She always sings great songs which are full of emotion and which tell stories. It was a musical treat listening to her. The"Under the Influence" album is a perfect example of her work; it is raunchy and sexy. "The Ice Cream Man dishes out more than ice cream. "My Land Is Too green " is a wonderful political statement that could only be delivered by a feisty Irish woman.
http://www.allmusic.com/album/under-the-influence-mw0000336965
I rigged up a high quality portable cassette player which still works very well . I connected the line outputs to the line input on my PC.
Audacity made an almost perfect copy of this tape. Even though the tape deck had Dolby Noise reduction you could still hear some tape hiss between the tracks. Audacity has removed all of this hiss without affecting the quality of the music. When I playback the copied file I hear silence between the racks just as if I was playing a CD.
The music, however, still sounds as if a Cassette is playing. This highlights the resolving power of digital technology. The music sounds exactly the same from both sources. There is no doubt in my mind that multiple and sequential copies of a WAV file or a CD could be made digitally without a deterioration in the quality of the music. This would not be possible in analogue format with Cassettes or LP records for that matter.
It would not be possible to make multiple and sequential of MP3 files without a deterioration of sound quality either.
I can now play Mary Coughlan in our modern car or stream her music all over the house. The original cassette still plays well after all those years but when it finally gives up the ghost I can make another tape for the older car. The tape hiss will comeback, however. One of the advantages of a digital file is that I can keep a master copy. I hope my jalopy will last long enough to test out the new tape.
Compact Cassettes will probably survive for a long time into the future just like LPs as there will always be someone who wants to play them. Let us hope that manufacturers will continue to make the tapes and the players. Maybe one day there will be a Cassette Tape revival.
I went to see Mary Coughlan live in 1987 just after the Under the Influence Album was released. She is one of the best performers I have had the pleasure of listening to live. She has a powerful, sultry and husky voice which is just right for jazz singing. There was no " lip-synching". She could perform well in a small jazz club without amplification. How many modern pop singers could do that?
Her backing musicians were completely professional .The sound engineers brought out the best of her voice even though they were using equipment primitive by today's standards. The full dynamic range of her voice could be appreciated.
She always sings great songs which are full of emotion and which tell stories. It was a musical treat listening to her. The"Under the Influence" album is a perfect example of her work; it is raunchy and sexy. "The Ice Cream Man dishes out more than ice cream. "My Land Is Too green " is a wonderful political statement that could only be delivered by a feisty Irish woman.
http://www.allmusic.com/album/under-the-influence-mw0000336965
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)